Navigate:

Hill talks numbers on defense cuts

After months of dire talk about $1 trillion in cuts to the Pentagon over the next decade if the sequester takes effect, and all the high-minded talk of zero cuts from hawks, defense is going to take another hit regardless of who’s in the White House next year. As that realization begins to sink in, critical lawmakers are already starting to play an old-fashioned game of horse trading.

Text Size

-

+

reset

The first move: Name a figure.

Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) has floated $587 billion in cuts. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) says he can swallow only $400 billion over 10 years. Sen. Kelly Ayotte doesn’t have a number yet, but the Republican from New Hampshire says she’s a part of the conversation.

Levin, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, was the first to start talking about a magic number. In June, he said he’d like to see an alternate deal that subtracted about $100 billion from the defense budget over the coming decade. That would be in addition to the $487 billion in reductions mandated by Congress last year but far less than the nearly $1 trillion the Department of Defense would’ve lost when that was combined with the sequester.

“I’m involved in discussions, and there’s others involved in discussions,” he told reporters.

The bottom line, though, is that he thinks Washington can avoid the worst.

“I predict there will not be a sequester,” Levin said. “One way or the other, since 90 percent of us don’t want it, it won’t happen. And my hope is that it won’t happen early enough to avoid any instability. What I am confident in is that it’s not going to happen because nobody around here wants it to happen except for some tea party folks.”

Almost all the discussion about an alternate deal has so far been confined to the Senate, which has not passed a defense authorization or an appropriation bill or any alternative to the automatic, across-the-board budget restrictions.

The House passed a bill earlier this year that would void the first year’s worth of sequestration by freezing the size of the federal workforce, and House lawmakers so far have stood by their work.

"find the cuts somewhere else"? really? how's about we get serious, and getting serious means looking at the line item with the largest expenditure in the budget, which is defense. you know the defense budget that calls for the USA policing the world, buying items they don't need, etc.

massfreethinker: " how's about we get serious, and getting serious means looking at the line item with the largest expenditure in the budget, which is defense."....................................What? If you want to get serious, and you don't, you'd be looking at reforming entitlements. It's right there in the article: "...next year’s Congress will have no choice but to focus on the biggest parts of the federal budget, including entitlements." Your focus on defense is blurry and selective. Entitlements are only entitlements until they aren't.

If we gut the military back to pre-WWII levels we will end up in WWIII and may end up there anyway if radical Islamists have their way. There are definite benefits to having a strong navy, air force, and a core ground force ready to deploy on a moments notice. We have already cut too much. The best "safety net" as far as social welfare is concerned is jobs.

If we gut the military back to pre-WWII levels we will end up in WWIII and may end up there anyway if radical Islamists have their way. There are definite benefits to having a strong navy, air force, and a core ground force ready to deploy on a moments notice. We have already cut too much. The best "safety net" as far as social welfare is concerned is jobs.

Well, if we just "leave everyone" alone and not offend anyone, they will leave us alone.

We can have a foreign policy that is based on, "Please leave us alone".

We can begin by arresting anyone who posts offensive religious material (all those except Christianity).

We can stop buying ANY oil from a foreign country (Canada and mexico included).

We should allow all of these Theocracies to pursue their policies and ignore their Genocidal threats (I mean, they must be kidding right?).

We spend more money on defense each year than the rest of the world combined. If we don't spend as much what do people think is going to happen? No one has more weapons both conventional and nuclear than the US. Just what are we so afraid of?

Cut defense and every other program if that is what is necessary to fix our financial situation.

And just think, if prezzy hadn’t have backed out of the deal he had with Boehner (that included (600bn in revenue), we would not be here..

Not quite true......let's get educated okay.......The legislative branch plays a critical role in U.S. foreign assistance, possessing the power both to authorize policy and appropriate funds. In response to the President's budget submission, the House and Senate Budget committees are the first to act, setting funding ceilings for various parts of the budget and guiding the work of both authorizing and appropriations committees. Each year, 11-12 appropriations bills, including the State, Foreign Operations, and Related Agencies bill, make their way through a long deliberative process in both the House and the Senate. The appropriations committees, in coordination with the authorizing committees, determine and allocate federal spending each year.

So..contrary to what is generally accepted by "people" the President submits a budget to the House and Senate budget committees thenspending caps for the apporpriation committees..then the Apporporations Chair sets allocations and the committiees set the funding ceilings..then the full Senate/House approve/vetoes allocations as set by the appropriations Committee so what is voted on by the respective House and Senate is not the President's Budget it's congress' Budget it comes from the respective committees.....because the President cannot compile/set a budget or spending ceilings... he only proposes budget guidelines...

Time for one of their "False Flag Operations" to stimulate and galvanize the duped public they 'reach' over the assigned FCC frequencies et al.

Time for a fake enemy just like alQaeda who NATO is funding to usurp practically every nation in the region. Thank You Israel, the last one did not have WMD's, yellow-cake uranium.. did not have anything..Zero-zilch!